Church learns vet was gay, cancels memorial

[mcgreen311]

Full article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20221295/?GT1=10252

ARLINGTON, Texas - A megachurch canceled a memorial service for a Navy veteran 24 hours before it was to start because the deceased was gay.

Officials at the nondenominational High Point Church knew that Cecil Howard Sinclair was gay when they offered to host his service, said his sister, Kathleen Wright. But after his obituary listed his life partner as one of his survivors, she said, it was called off.

“It’s a slap in the face. It’s like, ’Oh, we’re sorry he died, but he’s gay so we can’t help you,”’ she said Friday.

Wright said High Point offered to hold the service for Sinclair because their brother is a janitor there. Sinclair, who served in the first Gulf War, died Monday at age 46 from an infection after surgery to prepare him for a heart transplant.

The church’s pastor, the Rev. Gary Simons, said no one knew Sinclair, who was not a church member, was gay until the day before the Thursday service, when staff members putting together his video tribute saw pictures of men “engaging in clear affection, kissing and embracing.”

[rossid]

Now I initially was disturbed by this headline. How could a church be so unloving.

But when you read the decision-making process was after the partner was listed in the obit. I can understand the church's thought that the service would make them seem pro-gay, pro-sin, what have you.

[clemsontigers23]

I'm with rossid...doing that might seem like they're glorifying homosexuality and wrong-doing. If the man wasn't saved, would you celebrate the life of a man who rebelled against God and will pay for it in Hell? Just because he was a navy veteran doesn't give him a free pass.

[Evanescence]

I'm with rossid...doing that might seem like they're glorifying homosexuality and wrong-doing. If the man wasn't saved, would you celebrate the life of a man who rebelled against God and will pay for it in Hell? Just because he was a navy veteran doesn't give him a free pass.

Just because he was "gay" doesn't mean he wasn't saved...

Assumptions.

[cheewiee]

McGreen- Your title is misleading.

According to the article the church knew he was gay when they allowed the service. It was upon seeing what was to be included in the tribute video, that they decided to withdraw their offer to let the family use the facility.

While initially this seems cold, I understand the unwillingness of a Pastor to participate in something that could be used to glorify a lifestyle that is contrary to God's word.

[mcgreen311]

McGreen- Your title is misleading.

According to the article the church knew he was gay when they allowed the service. It was upon seeing what was to be included in the tribute video, that they decided to withdraw their offer to let the family use the facility.

While initially this seems cold, I understand the unwillingness of a Pastor to participate in something that could be used to glorify a lifestyle that is contrary to God's word.

That's the actual title of the article, so it was not my intention to be misleading. It seems there is some disagreement about when the information came out (no pun intended) as this quote testifies:

The church’s pastor, the Rev. Gary Simons, said no one knew Sinclair, who was not a church member, was gay until the day before the Thursday service, when staff members putting together his video tribute saw pictures of men “engaging in clear affection, kissing and embracing.”

In any case, I had much the same reaction as everyone else has posted. It's a very touchy situation, but if you liken it to other sins, you would not desire for others to be shown in the actual act of stealing or gossiping or pride. I wonder if the family could have edited the memorial, which, if I were in their place would not have.

[kiwisongbird]

Just because he was "gay" doesn't mean he wasn't saved...

Assumptions.

I agree, come on you guys - just cos you tell lies doesn't mean you're not saved...

Not sure what I think about the service being turned away though - that's a tough call... I guess next time one of the really gossipy women in the congregation dies they'll have to think that through too eh? :)

[sandie]

Yeah, I had the same idea, Sharon. Memorial services should be banned for adulterers, including clergy. And those who've thought of adultery. Also thieves and gossips and the proud and drunks. Liars as well. In fact all sinners. It'd cut down on the number of memorial services in no time. :P

[kiwisongbird]

In no time at all, there wouldn't be any at all - maybe begin a new trend - no memorial services...

I would imagine that it would be difficult to put in any of the "he's at peace" stuff when you're really not sure if 'he' is... there are certainly ways around it though - remembering the person and not talking too much about where you might think they are right now...

I remember going to a funeral when I had first 'come back' to the Lord and it was really horrible, the minister was going on about Johnnie being with the Lord and it was really freaking me out, I was pretty sure he wasn't with the Lord - funny thing though, all my non-believing friends knew it was all bs and stormed off from by the grave side in disgust...

[Evanescence]

Yeah, I love the assumptions on BOTH sides....postitive and negative. Even professing and devout Christians may not truly love or know God, and may not make it.

We can be so prejudiced...

[Yippy]

I think that those who are left behind should have been considered (if they weren't). What a wonderful opportunity to minister to the family and friends of the man who died. I can't imagine cancelling a memorial service 24 hours before it was scheduled. That's like adding insult to injury. As if they haven't suffered enough. Imagine the janitor's feelings. I wonder how much harm it would have caused to not cancel the memorial. I'm thinking it might not have been near as bad as the harm that's been caused by cancelling it. I think we tend to get so defensive about where we stand on issues that we forget that there are human beings at stake. A memorial service celebrates the life & memory of someone who's loved and shouldn't be an advertisement for a church. The church should be there to comfort & minister to those who are mourning. But if the church felt it would really be compromised by allowing all the pics to be used, I'm hoping every effort was made to find a compromise of sorts, like omitting the more offensive pictures. It was the staff who was putting together the video presentation...it wasn't like it was already made. I wonder if the family was asked if some pics could be omitted. And maybe the service could have been family led instead of pastor led. Seems to me you can have a memorial service without sanctioning the lifestyle of the deceased. It was his life being memorialized, not the church's. If anyone found the presentation offensive, they could ask the pastor about it, and he could then and there tell them the church's position.

[sandie]

Diane: This is common sense, and shows love to the relatives, at a time when they really need it, and will appreciate it. :)

Sadly, churches can sometimes build high walls around themselves to keep people out, when they could be building bridges, using love and compassion, to bring people into the God's kingdom.

[cheewiee]

Yeah, I had the same idea, Sharon. Memorial services should be banned for adulterers, including clergy. And those who've thought of adultery. Also thieves and gossips and the proud and drunks. Liars as well. In fact all sinners. It'd cut down on the number of memorial services in no time. :P

It isn't the same thing... Not even close...

The situation here is that the deceased was engaged in a lifestyle of sin. To memorialize him would either memorialize that lifestyle OR leave out a significant portion of his life. It isn't fair to ask those grieving INCLUDING his life partner to omit an acknowledgment of their relationship, but at the same time by participating (through allowing of use of the facility) in a memorial could be seen as though the church was condoning this type of lifestyle, EVEN if it doesn't.

[middletree]

It's unclear to me if the church offered to do the service without the offending pictures. If they didn't, then I am against what the church did. In general, I think the American church has failed homosexuals in huge ways, and this would just be one more example.

BTW, this church is 2 miles from my home. I have one friend (actually, a couple) who is part of that church. I haven't had a chance to ask them about it.

Prejudices on my part: Before reading the details, I tend to be more likely to side (a) with that church, because I don't trust the way the press reports stuff like this; and (b) against the church, because the pastor's wife is Joel Osteen's sister.

[Yippy]

It's unclear to me if the church offered to do the service without the offending pictures. If they didn't, then I am against what the church did. In general, I think the American church has failed homosexuals in huge ways, and this would just be one more example.
I agree

BTW, this church is 2 miles from my home. I have one friend (actually, a couple) who is part of that church. I haven't had a chance to ask them about it.
Wow. I'm looking forward to hearing what they have to say. Please share!

Prejudices on my part: Before reading the details, I tend to be more likely to side (a) with that church, because I don't trust the way the press reports stuff like this; and (b) against the church, because the pastor's wife is Joel Osteen's sister.
:D Good points.

[cheewiee]

It's unclear to me if the church offered to do the service without the offending pictures. If they didn't, then I am against what the church did. In general, I think the American church has failed homosexuals in huge ways, and this would just be one more example.

BTW, this church is 2 miles from my home. I have one friend (actually, a couple) who is part of that church. I haven't had a chance to ask them about it.

Prejudices on my part: Before reading the details, I tend to be more likely to side (a) with that church, because I don't trust the way the press reports stuff like this; and (b) against the church, because the pastor's wife is Joel Osteen's sister.

I have a question... Let's just say that your wife were to pass away. Would you rather be turned away from having her memorial at the last minute, or asked to leave out pictures that may have shown the two of you being tender... How about ask that when you stand up to talk about her, that you keep your memories plutonic leaving out any romantic stories...

Personally in this situation, I think that I would rather have to postpone the memorial rather than celebrate my love for my wife. I think that it would have been colder for the church to ask them to censor the memorial service, but that is just me...

[clemsontigers23]

All I can say is...Sodom and Gomorrah. Do we really want to celebrate something God hates so much?

[SonflowerGurl]

All I can say is...Sodom and Gomorrah. Do we really want to celebrate something God hates so much?


I'm not sure a memorial is a "celebration" and really is appropriate to make such a comment about someone who has past. --

I feel for the family and friends that lost this person ...BUT the church was not wrong. I'm actually surprised no one spoke up who knew this person was actively gay didn't say something to someone at the church when they offered the facilities. I hope the church offered the family the facilities after the mistake with appropriate changes that would be honoring to God based on the Church's beliefs OR that the service could be postponed and moved.

[clemsontigers23]

I'm not sure a memorial is a "celebration" and really is appropriate to make such a comment about someone who has past. --

I feel for the family and friends that lost this person ...BUT the church was not wrong. I'm actually surprised no one spoke up who knew this person was actively gay didn't say something to someone at the church when they offered the facilities. I hope the church offered the family the facilities after the mistake with appropriate changes that would be honoring to God based on the Church's beliefs OR that the service could be postponed and moved.

The man lived an actively homosexual lifestyle. There's a difference between tolerating the man and tolerating the lifestyle. The church should never tolerate the lifestyle. Ever. Under any circumstances. Being gay was a crucial part of the man's life, maybe even the basis of his life. It's almost like celebrating the life of a serial killer in the church. It doesn't belong. None of us are without sin, but if the man died gay, he probably never repented for that sin.

Like you said, the church was not in the wrong here.

[middletree]

I have a question... Let's just say that your wife were to pass away.

I gotta be honest. I don't like analogies too much, because they always end up being a changed situation from the ne actually being discussed. The real situation as it is is enough, doncha think?

Would you rather be turned away from having her memorial at the last minute, or asked to leave out pictures that may have shown the two of you being tender... How about ask that when you stand up to talk about her, that you keep your memories plutonic leaving out any romantic stories...

Do you mean platonic?

The question here is whether or not the pictures showed homosexual activity, included implied homosexuality such as kissing. It is not to be endorsed. Having said this, I think the worst we can say about this church is that they made a decision we don't like. I don't think they were trying to be cruel. They tried to accommodate the family in many ways, from what I read. But if the pictures weren't' as they say, which is what the family claims, then shame on that church.

[sandie]

The man lived an actively homosexual lifestyle. There's a difference between tolerating the man and tolerating the lifestyle. The church should never tolerate the lifestyle. Ever. Under any circumstances. Being gay was a crucial part of the man's life, maybe even the basis of his life. It's almost like celebrating the life of a serial killer in the church. It doesn't belong. None of us are without sin, but if the man died gay, he probably never repented for that sin.

Like you said, the church was not in the wrong here.

Yet churches marry adulterers quite often, with no questions asked, and often repeat offenders. Churches also bury these same adulterers, and hold memorial services for them. So, why is there discrimination against homosexual sin, and the tolerance of heterosexual sin?

All sin is abhorrent to our holy and righteous God, and yet he loves each one of us, despite our sins - lying, stealing, gossiping, pride, selfishness, and many many others.

I don't agree with showing footage in a memorial service which is contrary to God's standards, but the memorial service could have gone ahead, and the family would have been ministered to by the church, at a time when they really needed it.

[SonflowerGurl]

The man lived an actively homosexual lifestyle. There's a difference between tolerating the man and tolerating the lifestyle. The church should never tolerate the lifestyle. Ever. Under any circumstances. Being gay was a crucial part of the man's life, maybe even the basis of his life. It's almost like celebrating the life of a serial killer in the church. It doesn't belong. None of us are without sin, but if the man died gay, he probably never repented for that sin.

Like you said, the church was not in the wrong here.

Does name-calling, pointing out his lifestyle or "shunning" do anything to change this person's eternal salvation? Christians need to speak truth but also need to act mercifully.Whatever is this gentleman's eternal fate is up to God, not us.

If you have a family member die in a questionable state doesn't mean you grief less ...in fact it can be even harder because you don't have the assurance of their salvation. Within firm boundaries of honoring God within the church, I don't think there is anything wrong with offering grace and mercy to those left behind. In fact, handled well it can actually be a powerful witness.

[sandie]

Absolutely, SonflowerGurl. :)

[cheewiee]

I gotta be honest. I don't like analogies too much, because they always end up being a changed situation from the ne actually being discussed. The real situation as it is is enough, doncha think?

Do you mean platonic?

The question here is whether or not the pictures showed homosexual activity, included implied homosexuality such as kissing. It is not to be endorsed. Having said this, I think the worst we can say about this church is that they made a decision we don't like. I don't think they were trying to be cruel. They tried to accommodate the family in many ways, from what I read. But if the pictures weren't' as they say, which is what the family claims, then shame on that church.

It isn't just the pictures. Memorial services are about the person and their life. So do you think it would be appropriate to ask a loved one to not recount the tenderness of their relationship? That is why I gave the analogy that I did.

[middletree]

So do you think it would be appropriate to ask a loved one to not recount the tenderness of their relationship?

That's a good question. I think even the most hard-hearted of gay activists must acknowledge that this is a lifestyle that many people are opposed to, and for that reason alone, they should proceed with caution when in a church building and wanting to describe their affection for someone of the same sex.

What baffles me about this family is that they are a few miles from the largest gay-friendly church in the world, Metropolitan Community Church in Dallas (I think that's the name). Not sure why they didn't just go there. (Yes, I know the guy's brother was a janitor at the High Point church)

[GayChristian]

I don't know the answer to the question, and I hate to sound trite - but "what would Christ do in this case?"

Imagine sitting around the board room table at the church office - emergency meeting called to figure out how to deal with the "situation". You look over, and one of the board members is wearing old-school robes, has a beard like all of the pictures you've seen of him, and a smile that says, "I know what you're thinking, and I love you anyway".

The topic is discussed, ideas are thrown around, and we go around the room to hear each person's thoughts on the subject at hand... and their recommendation to the rest of the board.

What do you think Christ would recommend to the board? What the church did is understandable - if I put myself into their shoes... "don't condone a sinful lifestyle". To me, and I don't speak for anybody but me, the circumstance (and the church's response) drove home a little deeper my feeling of, "Here's another group of people trying to represent the 'Body of Christ' - and all their actions just make them appear to be bigoted, fear-based, and heartless."

The Christ that saved me has a whole lot of unconditional love. It's a Love and a Peace that surpasses understanding.

And, by the way, "that Church" is exactly the same as we are here on the Third Day boards. We can stop pointing fingers over there and saying that they are the ones screwing everything up... we are just as fear-based on these boards as any member of any church - I'm surprised they have let this thread go on this long. Most of the threads involving the topic are edited to keep the anti-gay comments in, and then locked to prevent any further discussion on the topic... or they're just deleted altogether.

[Sam!]

2nd Samuel Chapter 6:
6 When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. 7 The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.

GayChristan (forgive me for not remembering your name--I have always been thoroughly awful at remembering which screennames go with which real names), your theology seems to hinge on love being God's defining characteristic, above all else. Perhaps love is a good summary, but it requires a lot more exposition than we often give it. Because God's love surpasses understanding, we can't always state with certainty what God will do based solely on our idea of love.

The truth is, God's love does involve discipline. God's truth does involve right and wrong. God's holiness does involve standards. There is more at work than just good intentions. Uzzah had good intentions. But God had clearly laid out certain fundamental "rules" regarding the Ark of the Covenant. Uzzah violated that Ark and he violated God's holiness in doing so.

My parents love me very much. That didn't mean that I got away with whatever I wanted because I thought it was right for me, no matter how mucH I thought their worldview might be outdated. When I messed up, I expected discipline. But in that discipline, I learned to see their love.

What I would have done as senior pastor of that church depends heavily on whether or not the deceased was a Christian, and whether or not his family is. If he wasn't a Christian, there's no reason to have the service in our church--but I would have been glad to help out a family in need and offered to help find (and pay for) a service elsewhere. Would I "do" the funeral? Probably not--if I didn't know the man or his family.

[Sam!]

On a side note, complaining about the moderating in public never, ever helps.

[middletree]

To me, and I don't speak for anybody but me, the circumstance (and the church's response) drove home a little deeper my feeling of, "Here's another group of people trying to represent the 'Body of Christ' - and all their actions just make them appear to be bigoted, fear-based, and heartless."
Or perhaps it was presented that way in the press. This might be another example of the press making the story out to be something it wasn't. Giving us only some of the facts, those which made Christians look as foolish as possible.

Read the explanation offered by the High Point Church:
http://www.churchunusual.com/statement.html

"The church employee reached out to the family and tried to comfort them the best he could. The church did offer the family, free of charge, the use of
its facility for the memorial service. It was not known at this time that
the family desired a memorial service that would openly celebrate the
homosexual lifestyle of Mr. Sinclair.
The family requested that the church produce a video of Mr. Sinclair's life
for the memorial service. When the photos were presented to the church the
day before the scheduled memorial service, there were some inappropriate
images that alerted the church to the homosexuality of Mr. Sinclair. One
photo showed a man with his hand touching another man's genitalia. The
phrase "like hugs and kisses" used by a staff member to describe to the
pastor the blatant homosexual reference was mild at best.

The family desired an associate of an openly homosexual choir to officiate
the service and for the choir to sing. They also desired an open microphone
format to allow anyone in attendance to speak. High Point Church ministers
would not be directing or have control over what was said or emphasized. It
became clear to the church staff that the family was requesting an openly
homosexual service at High Point Church ..."

[cheewiee]

-Tree, You left out this little snippit...

Once this information was made known to the High Point staff, a decision was made to make alternative arrangements, at the expense of the church, that would meet the needs of the family and not subject our sanctuary to being used for a memorial service where homosexuality would be celebrated. The family was informed of the decision.

And this one...


To assist the family in securing another location, an alternative venue was paid for - which the family declined. We produced for the family the memorial video they requested without the inappropriate photos. We also prepared and delivered food for the family and one hundred relatives and friends. Our love for the family was demonstrated over and again in our many acts of kindness and concern. Many of our faithful members spent hours cooking and preparing the meals and our staff worked diligently to meet the needs of the family.

It seems that the church went well above and beyond what was called for...

[GayChristian]

Or perhaps it was presented that way in the press. This might be another example of the press making the story out to be something it wasn't. Giving us only some of the facts, those which made Christians look as foolish as possible.


-Tree, You left out this little snippit...

James and Jason, you guys are exactly right. The media loves to lead what bleeds, it's only basis is getting people hyped up... so they'll watch more news.

I'll go back to lurking for a while. ;)

grace and peace,
-Mark

[clemsontigers23]

I don't know the answer to the question, and I hate to sound trite - but "what would Christ do in this case?"

Imagine sitting around the board room table at the church office - emergency meeting called to figure out how to deal with the "situation". You look over, and one of the board members is wearing old-school robes, has a beard like all of the pictures you've seen of him, and a smile that says, "I know what you're thinking, and I love you anyway".

The topic is discussed, ideas are thrown around, and we go around the room to hear each person's thoughts on the subject at hand... and their recommendation to the rest of the board.

What do you think Christ would recommend to the board? What the church did is understandable - if I put myself into their shoes... "don't condone a sinful lifestyle". To me, and I don't speak for anybody but me, the circumstance (and the church's response) drove home a little deeper my feeling of, "Here's another group of people trying to represent the 'Body of Christ' - and all their actions just make them appear to be bigoted, fear-based, and heartless."

The Christ that saved me has a whole lot of unconditional love. It's a Love and a Peace that surpasses understanding.

And, by the way, "that Church" is exactly the same as we are here on the Third Day boards. We can stop pointing fingers over there and saying that they are the ones screwing everything up... we are just as fear-based on these boards as any member of any church - I'm surprised they have let this thread go on this long. Most of the threads involving the topic are edited to keep the anti-gay comments in, and then locked to prevent any further discussion on the topic... or they're just deleted altogether.

Romans 1:26-27

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Like it or not, homosexuality is an abomination to God. When Christians reject homosexuality, they are not being heartless or bigoted, and I'm somewhat offended you would call us that.

I think you know deep down the lifestyle you are living is wrong. I can only pray that God will open your eyes.

[Jesuslove]

Romans 1:26-27



Like it or not, homosexuality is an abomination to God. When Christians reject homosexuality, they are not being heartless or bigoted, and I'm somewhat offended you would call us that.

I think you know deep down the lifestyle you are living is wrong. I can only pray that God will open your eyes.

I think that every church has a right to set policy. However, I believe in fairness, churches should be consistent. If a church refuses to hold a memorial for a gay person based on Biblical teachings, then they should also not hold memorial services for individuals who are divorced and remarried (living in sin).

[SonflowerGurl]

I think that every church has a right to set policy.

I think policy should be set on God's Word.


However, I believe in fairness, churches should be consistent. If a church refuses to hold a memorial for a gay person based on Biblical teachings, then they should also not hold memorial services for individuals who are divorced and remarried (living in sin).

I don't think the issue is that the person was a practicing homosexual --if sin was to exclude anyone from being in a church then no one could enter.
--the issue was those who were planning the memorial planned to "celebrate" in a brazen way a lifestyle choice that is sinful. Out of reverance for Our God Almighty -- that would not have been consistant with the Word.

[Jesuslove]

I think policy should be set on God's Word.




I don't think the issue is that the person was a practicing homosexual --if sin was to exclude anyone from being in a church then no one could enter.
--the issue was those who were planning the memorial planned to "celebrate" in a brazen way a lifestyle choice that is sinful. Out of reverance for Our God Almighty -- that would not have been consistant with the Word.

would pics of a remarried divorced person with their new spouse be considered brazen or a lifestyle choice which is sinful?

again, I have no issue with churches setting policy, but if you conisder one sin brazen, then certainly other sin should be viewed as brazen.

[SonflowerGurl]

would pics of a remarried divorced person with their new spouse be considered brazen or a lifestyle choice which is sinful?

again, I have no issue with churches setting policy, but if you conisder one sin brazen, then certainly other sin should be viewed as brazen.

If you read the statement from the church it clearly tells of very suggestive photographs were submitted for the "memorial". Actually the whole thing has a feel of being staged for such a confrontation and/or media headline but that's another issue.

As for a memorial of someone who had been divorced and at some point remarried -- well, I would guess that would depend on the circumstances wouldn't it? If there was a mistriss situation with kids and a spouse abandoned and their had been no repentance -- yes, that would be kind of brazen. But many people go through divorce and remarry where they were not the guilty spouse and even with the "guilty" spouse if he/she comes to true repentance then the divorce becomes an "event" which they have been forgiven.

[blacksheep]

As for a memorial of someone who had been divorced and at some point remarried -- well, I would guess that would depend on the circumstances wouldn't it? If there was a mistriss situation with kids and a spouse abandoned and their had been no repentance -- yes, that would be kind of brazen. But many people go through divorce and remarry where they were not the guilty spouse and even with the "guilty" spouse if he/she comes to true repentance then the divorce becomes an "event" which they have been forgiven.

I'm pretty sure the Bible does not distinguish between reasons for divorce when speaking of remarriage. I'm also pretty sure the only time you are allowed to get remarried is if your spouse is dead.

So, Jesus love brings up an intersting point. The question of how "holy" churches should be. Should a pastor marry an unsaved couple or a couple known to be living in sin. Is there a difference between the sins that we go through everyday and sins that have us as an individual by the nape?

[Jesuslove]

If you read the statement from the church it clearly tells of very suggestive photographs were submitted for the "memorial". Actually the whole thing has a feel of being staged for such a confrontation and/or media headline but that's another issue.

As for a memorial of someone who had been divorced and at some point remarried -- well, I would guess that would depend on the circumstances wouldn't it? If there was a mistriss situation with kids and a spouse abandoned and their had been no repentance -- yes, that would be kind of brazen. But many people go through divorce and remarry where they were not the guilty spouse and even with the "guilty" spouse if he/she comes to true repentance then the divorce becomes an "event" which they have been forgiven.

If the "guilty" spouse sought true repentance, wouldn't they return to their original spouse? The Bible, and more importantly, Jesus is very clear about divorce.

[cheewiee]

I'm pretty sure the Bible does not distinguish between reasons for divorce when speaking of remarriage. I'm also pretty sure the only time you are allowed to get remarried is if your spouse is dead.

So, Jesus love brings up an intersting point. The question of how "holy" churches should be. Should a pastor marry an unsaved couple or a couple known to be living in sin. Is there a difference between the sins that we go through everyday and sins that have us as an individual by the nape?

Actually you are wrong...

Jesus plainly stated that the only acceptable reason for a divorced person to remarry is if they were divorced for the purpose of Adultry. A spouse remarrying after divorcing a cheating spouse has been released from their covenant of marriage and free to remarry...

[cheewiee]

If the "guilty" spouse sought true repentance, wouldn't they return to their original spouse? The Bible, and more importantly, Jesus is very clear about divorce.

That is *IF* not many guilty spouses seek repentance... and again, ONCE the adultery has occurred the marriage covenant is broken. It is up to the one who was being cheated on to decide if they want to continue, and if they don't they are free to remarry.

[blacksheep]

Actually you are wrong...

Jesus plainly stated that the only acceptable reason for a divorced person to remarry is if they were divorced for the purpose of Adultry. A spouse remarrying after divorcing a cheating spouse has been released from their covenant of marriage and free to remarry...

Please.

Luke 16:18 Jesus is quoted again, saying, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

Romans 7:2-3 The apostle Paul taught that “...by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.”

1 Corinthians 7:10-13, 27, 39 The apostle Paul’s teaching continues: “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him ... [27] Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife ... [39] A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.”

[cheewiee]

It was also said, Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Jesus words in Luke are fleshed out in Matthew.

[blacksheep]

Jesus words in Luke are fleshed out in Matthew.
It was also said, Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

And you still have to reconsile Romans and Corinthians.

[cheewiee]

And you still have to reconsile Romans and Corinthians.

No I don't because neither because both are general statements about divorce, whereas Jesus is a bit more detailed...

[middletree]

Romans 7:2-3 The apostle Paul taught that “...by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.”


You are completely misunderstanding what this passage is about. Paul is using an existing civil law (not religious in nature) to explain some spiritual realities. He isn't saying that he is for or against that type of law.

[blacksheep]

You are completely misunderstanding what this passage is about.

No, I don't believe I am.

cheewiee, the statement in Matthew does clearly say that if a man divorces his wife on any ground other than unfaithfullness that he makes her commit adultery. It speaks to nothing of a man or woman who remarries after divorce for any other reason. You believe that it is ok to remarry after divorce brought by unfaithfullness because you are inferring that is what Jesus meant when he didn't address that circumstance specifically. This site gives a better explanation of what I'm trying to say about "infering the negative", it even deals with the passage in Matthew specifically although it is very long.

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/neginf.html

[middletree]

No, I don't believe I am.

I once heard a speaker talk about how Christians don't need to be under the bondage of sin, and we are actually free, but don't know it because the Enemy doesn't want us to know it. He used the example of how the slaves in Texas didn't know about the Emancipation Proclamation until over 2 years after it had been signed.

It was an excellent example, and one that most people listening could understand. Likewise, Paul is talking in Romans 7 about a similar subject, and he uses an example that the people of Rome could understand. He is in no way endorsing that view of marriage and divorce any more than the speaker I heard was endorsing the slavery system.

Paul's subject in the book of Romans, especially chapters 6, 7, and 8, is about who we are in Christ. It makes absolutely no sense to pause and tell us what the rules about divorce are. He's using that as a way of explaining what he's really talking about. If you look at the way it's worded, you'll see what I mean.

[blacksheep]

Paul's subject in the book of Romans, especially chapters 6, 7, and 8, is about who we are in Christ. It makes absolutely no sense to pause and tell us what the rules about divorce are. He's using that as a way of explaining what he's really talking about. If you look at the way it's worded, you'll see what I mean.

Yes, I agree with that. That in and of itself does not prove or disprove my stance on remarriage after divorce. My statement, "No, I don't think I'm wrong" was meant to say that Paul said what he said, regardless of the overall topic being discussed. Taken with other statements throughout the Bible, I believe it still supports my view.

[Teresa79]

He was a veteran, he put his life at risk so we can have churches for memorials to be performed at. So who the heck cares if he gay?! I don't. I personally think that church was stupid for cancelling his memorial service.

[middletree]

Did you read the whole thing? The issue was that his family wanted to include elements in the service which glorified homosexuality. not that he was simply gay.

[Jesuslove]

Did you read the whole thing? The issue was that his family wanted to include elements in the service which glorified homosexuality. not that he was simply gay.

I guess it depends how you would define "glorify". If it were a divorced/married couple, who wanted pictures together included in a slide show, would that be considered glorifying sin?

[cheewiee]

I guess it depends how you would define "glorify". If it were a divorced/married couple, who wanted pictures together included in a slide show, would that be considered glorifying sin?

That would depend on your personal view of divorce, but I know in say the SBC it would be. Example, Charles Stanely prominent TV preacher's wife left him some time ago, and if he were to remarry he would lose his ordination in the SBC....

[Debbie]

This is just an off the top of my head statement without any biblical reference other than Sodom & Gomorrah...and the thief (not the homosexual) on the cross next to Jesus.

God did not wipe out cities of adulterers, theives or murderers. He did wipe out a city full of homosexual behavior. I maybe totally wrong, but, I can imagine this where the church draws the line, based upon God's own wrath which does have merit. Maybe there is a fear or misunderstanding of it ??? Just some thoughts to ponder over.

[Debbie]

And, by the way, "that Church" is exactly the same as we are here on the Third Day boards. We can stop pointing fingers over there and saying that they are the ones screwing everything up... we are just as fear-based on these boards as any member of any church - I'm surprised they have let this thread go on this long. Most of the threads involving the topic are edited to keep the anti-gay comments in, and then locked to prevent any further discussion on the topic... or they're just deleted altogether.


Mark,

To answer your question and for others who may have the same question; this thread is a good and healthly discussion thus far about the memorial service for a deceased man. It is not a thread created to gain support for a questionable lifestyle.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Debbie

[clemsontigers23]

This is just an off the top of my head statement without any biblical reference other than Sodom & Gomorrah...and the thief (not the homosexual) on the cross next to Jesus.

God did not wipe out cities of adulterers, theives or murderers. He did wipe out a city full of homosexual behavior. I maybe totally wrong, but, I can imagine this where the church draws the line, based upon God's own wrath which does have merit. Maybe there is a fear or misunderstanding of it ??? Just some thoughts to ponder over.

Amen.

Don't be tricked by the pro-homosexual agenda sweeping the nation and infiltrating the church. No one should persecute homosexual people, but we are not to be tolerant towards the homosexual lifestyle. No man is without sin, but there's a difference. You can't just simplify this by saying "well everyone sins" because this man lived a lifestyle of homosexual sin. What that means is he never repented for it or turned from it, yet continued to live it.

You have to ask yourself...am I compromising my beliefs to fit in with the world, or am I taking a stand for God by not tolerating something He hates so much?

[cheewiee]

This is just an off the top of my head statement without any biblical reference other than Sodom & Gomorrah...and the thief (not the homosexual) on the cross next to Jesus.

God did not wipe out cities of adulterers, theives or murderers. He did wipe out a city full of homosexual behavior. I maybe totally wrong, but, I can imagine this where the church draws the line, based upon God's own wrath which does have merit. Maybe there is a fear or misunderstanding of it ??? Just some thoughts to ponder over.


Did God wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah because of just the sin of homosexuality, or because of extreme wickedness?

I mean specifically

20Then the LORD said, "Because(R) the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, 21(S) I will go down to see whether they have done altogether[g] according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not,(T) I will know."

The only inference we have to homosexuality being involved was because of the Angels visiting Lot...

And remember, God judged other cities, possibly even more harshly... Look at Ninevah. It was ground down so, that When Alexander swept across Asia, he didn't even know a city stood on the river of Tigris... And modern Scholars used to use ninevah as an example of an error in the Bible, because up until recently the only account for such a city was Scripture. They argued that any city that was as important as ninevah would have to have an account elsewhere...

In Romans, Paul lists homosexuality as the end of a society has rejected God. This swelling acceptance of homosexuality that has swept across this nation, and even into the church is only a sign and symptom of the true problem, a people that have rejected God.

[Jesuslove]

Amen.

Don't be tricked by the pro-homosexual agenda sweeping the nation and infiltrating the church. No one should persecute homosexual people, but we are not to be tolerant towards the homosexual lifestyle.

I try to distinguish between the two. Homosexuals are human beings and worthy of the same respect and love that we expect in return from our fellow human beings. God calls upon us to love the least of our brethern. To me, I find it hard to love someone and at the same time, judge them. I leave judgement up to God.

Several people have mentioned that the reason the church would not hold this memorial service is because this man had not repented. How can we be the judge of that? How do we know what was in his heart? Maybe he was loving the sinner, but not the sin. Jesus was never afraid to be seen with anyone. Granted photography didn't exist 2000 years ago, but the Bible speaks often of Jesus embracing the outcasts of society.

[cheewiee]

I try to distinguish between the two. Homosexuals are human beings and worthy of the same respect and love that we expect in return from our fellow human beings. God calls upon us to love the least of our brethern. To me, I find it hard to love someone and at the same time, judge them. I leave judgement up to God.

Several people have mentioned that the reason the church would not hold this memorial service is because this man had not repented. How can we be the judge of that? How do we know what was in his heart? Maybe he was loving the sinner, but not the sin. Jesus was never afraid to be seen with anyone. Granted photography didn't exist 2000 years ago, but the Bible speaks often of Jesus embracing the outcasts of society.

If you look at the statement from the church, the reason they state they didn't host the event is that first, the photographs that wanted to be used had some sexually purrogitive content (men grabing other men's genatles, etc) and second they wanted the service to be officiated by clergy from another church, (possibibly either MCC or UCC) that openly accepts the homosexual lifestyle.

The church offered to pay for another venue, produced a video that did not have the pictures the church found unacceptable, and even made a meal for the family and friends of the deceased following the memorial.

What they did not want, was for their sanctuary become the sight of what could have become a pro-homosexual rally.

Actually, I believe this church did an outstanding job showing love, while yet refusing to show acceptance of a sinful lifestyle.

[clemsontigers23]

To me, I find it hard to love someone and at the same time, judge them. I leave judgement up to God.

I think this is a huge problem in the Church today. We're so big on loving one another and being positive that it's almost like the Church has turned into another self-help program. We're always telling people to love one another and be joyful, but saving someone from Hell by trying to help them turn from their sin seems like one of the greatest acts of love anyone can show someone.

Honestly, I think a lot of Christians today are scared to be called Bible-thumpers, Jesus freaks, fire and brimstone preachers, judgmental, intolerant, etc. and I think they are so scared of not being accepted that they have dumbed down the Gospel to get more people in the Church. Problem is, many people don't stay in the Church and the people that do are sometimes living double lives. God never told us not to speak out against sin...He's given us what's right and what's wrong in His Word, so there's no debating that homosexuality is wrong. If God didn't want us speaking out against sin, then 99% of the people who wrote the Bible would be Bible-thumpers, including Jesus.

Jesus spoke out against a lot of things and told people when they messed up. We should be there to help a person right a wrong in their life in a gentle and loving manner.

[cheewiee]

Jesus spoke out against a lot of things and told people when they messed up. We should be there to help a person right a wrong in their life in a gentle and loving manner.

I think you bring up an excellent point here. Jesus did confront sin. Some would argue that he only confronted it in the lost, others would say he only confronted it only in the religious, but both are wrong. Jesus plainly confronted sin. An excellent example was the woman at the well. She wasn't one of the Pharasee's or other stuffy religious types. She was a woman in sin and he called her out on it, and called for her to repent.

As an individual sin, the sin of homosexuality is no different than the sin of gossip, covertness, bearing false witness against a neighbor. However, looking back at history, and then in Romans, chapter 1, Paul talks about God turning over entire groups of people to these types of sin. Each and every time a civilization has reached it's zenith, or it's peak idolatry and homosexuality abound.

Paul makes it clear that when man wholly rejects God, he will turn them over to this type of mindset. So the seemingly epidemic of homosexuality isn't the problem. The problem is that as a society we have turned our back on God. We do not regard Him as God. Humanism has crept in not only America but within the church. Humanity believes that it can save itself. The church believes this too by trying to pass legislation making homosexuality illegal, preventing homosexual marriages and so forth.

If we want a righteous nation, the solution isn't through the political system. It is through revival. The fact is, the liberal church doesn't believe in the supernatural, and the evangelical church wants the political power.

The fault of the direction this nation has taken lies solely on the doors of the church. We have failed to be a people of prayer, and a people of supernatural power.

[clemsontigers23]

I think you bring up an excellent point here. Jesus did confront sin. Some would argue that he only confronted it in the lost, others would say he only confronted it only in the religious, but both are wrong. Jesus plainly confronted sin. An excellent example was the woman at the well. She wasn't one of the Pharasee's or other stuffy religious types. She was a woman in sin and he called her out on it, and called for her to repent.

As an individual sin, the sin of homosexuality is no different than the sin of gossip, covertness, bearing false witness against a neighbor. However, looking back at history, and then in Romans, chapter 1, Paul talks about God turning over entire groups of people to these types of sin. Each and every time a civilization has reached it's zenith, or it's peak idolatry and homosexuality abound.

Paul makes it clear that when man wholly rejects God, he will turn them over to this type of mindset. So the seemingly epidemic of homosexuality isn't the problem. The problem is that as a society we have turned our back on God. We do not regard Him as God. Humanism has crept in not only America but within the church. Humanity believes that it can save itself. The church believes this too by trying to pass legislation making homosexuality illegal, preventing homosexual marriages and so forth.

If we want a righteous nation, the solution isn't through the political system. It is through revival. The fact is, the liberal church doesn't believe in the supernatural, and the evangelical church wants the political power.

The fault of the direction this nation has taken lies solely on the doors of the church. We have failed to be a people of prayer, and a people of supernatural power.

Agreed. We recently learned about how at ancient Greece's peak, homosexuality was rampant. Many could argue the word "lesbian" came from the Greek poetess Sappho on the Greek island of Lesbos. Ancient Greece fell shortly thereafter when homosexuality had been at its peak. Later on Paul would go to Corinth and other locations in Greece to discuss this problem.

As you said, homosexuality is more of a result of the nation...heck, the world...turning its back on God. That's why I think the Church needs to be more than something to do on Sunday morning. It has certainly failed lately in turning people into disciples instead of regular church attendees. Not all churches, but the largest churches are usually this way.

[middletree]

I guess it depends how you would define "glorify".

If you read the article that was linked earlier in this thread, you'll see that the church claimed that the pictures were way beyond that.

[middletree]

Don't be tricked by the pro-homosexual agenda sweeping the nation and infiltrating the church. No one should persecute homosexual people, but we are not to be tolerant towards the homosexual lifestyle.

While I agree with you, this statement bothers me because I hear it so much from Christians who fail to lump in other sexual sins. It's not that Christians are approving of adultery and pornography, but they are much more understanding and less judgmental of that behavior than they are of homosexual activity.

[cheewiee]

While I agree with you, this statement bothers me because I hear it so much from Christians who fail to lump in other sexual sins. It's not that Christians are approving of adultery and pornography, but they are much more understanding and less judgmental of that behavior than they are of homosexual activity.

I agree with you, James. But pornographers and adulterers don't usually revel and boast in their sinful lifestyles the way Homosexuals do. I think that is why you see the church more judgmental and less understanding.

[middletree]

I agree with you, James. But pornographers and adulterers don't usually revel and boast in their sinful lifestyles the way Homosexuals do.

My criticism was of how Christians handle it, not what sinner do. For instance, I caught a few minutes of Friends the other night, there was a joke about Joey's love of porn. Christians are certainly among those who laughed right along with everyone else.

I think that is why you see the church more judgmental and less understanding.

I have a different reason. I think the average American adult Christian hears someone confess to, say, getting wasted last weekend, or hears someone say that they were promiscuous a few years ago and it is causing problems in their marriage now. When a Christian hears this, he is sympathetic, thinking something along the lines of "Hey, I remember the way it was back when I was 20". In other words, they can relate. But they can't relate to the homosexual, because it wasn't something they did back in college or at any time.

I think that this is why Paul lumps all these sins together in 1 Corinthians 6, saying "such were some of you".

[cheewiee]

My criticism was of how Christians handle it, not what sinner do. For instance, I caught a few minutes of Friends the other night, there was a joke about Joey's love of porn. Christians are certainly among those who laughed right along with everyone else.



I have a different reason. I think the average American adult Christian hears someone confess to, say, getting wasted last weekend, or hears someone say that they were promiscuous a few years ago and it is causing problems in their marriage now. When a Christian hears this, he is sympathetic, thinking something along the lines of "Hey, I remember the way it was back when I was 20". In other words, they can relate. But they can't relate to the homosexual, because it wasn't something they did back in college or at any time.

I think that this is why Paul lumps all these sins together in 1 Corinthians 6, saying "such were some of you".

I understand of that your criticism was directed towards Christians. My point was that homosexuality is flaunted, whereas things like a porn addiction, or adultery tend to be carried out in secret. I mean guys on TV may brag about porn.. but most men do not. For most men, looking at porn is still a shameful activity.

I think we as Christians tend to be willing to show more grace to people dealing with a secret sin, or struggling with a shameful sin, vs someone who is openly blunt about their sin. I think this is true of most sin.

[Debbie]

Excellent discussion! Thank you everyone for keeping in check.

I don't want to forget about the "church" that declined the memorial service for this man. IMO, the church did do everything it could to assist the family, showing much love and compassion for his family. Do we all agree? or is there more to be said?

[Jesuslove]

I understand of that your criticism was directed towards Christians. My point was that homosexuality is flaunted, whereas things like a porn addiction, or adultery tend to be carried out in secret.

I disagree. Many homosexuals don't flaunt their lifestyles. In fact, I suspect there are many homosexuals living near you, working near you, praying near you, etc. ... and you have no idea. Again, we need to define what "flaunting a lifestyle" means.

As heterosexuals do, does displaying a family picture on your desk at work count as flaunting a lifestyle?

[Jesuslove]

Agreed. We recently learned about how at ancient Greece's peak, homosexuality was rampant. Many could argue the word "lesbian" came from the Greek poetess Sappho on the Greek island of Lesbos. Ancient Greece fell shortly thereafter when homosexuality had been at its peak. Later on Paul would go to Corinth and other locations in Greece to discuss this problem.


You make an assumption that the fall of the Greek empire was related to homosexuality at all. Do we look at the fall of the German Empire of the 20th century and blame homosexuality? No. Hitler was not homosexual. Earlier, there was no suggestion that Napoleon was homosexual. In fact, can we say any leader through history was homosexual and his homosexuality caused the downfall of a society? I can't think of one. And I don't think that was the case in Soddom and Gomorrah as there are multiple interpretations as to why their destruction occurred.

[Jesuslove]

Honestly, I think a lot of Christians today are scared to be called Bible-thumpers, Jesus freaks, fire and brimstone preachers, judgmental, intolerant, etc. and I think they are so scared of not being accepted that they have dumbed down the Gospel to get more people in the Church. Problem is, many people don't stay in the Church and the people that do are sometimes living double lives. God never told us not to speak out against sin...He's given us what's right and what's wrong in His Word, so there's no debating that homosexuality is wrong. If God didn't want us speaking out against sin, then 99% of the people who wrote the Bible would be Bible-thumpers, including Jesus.

I think being called a Jesus freak is a compliment. It was the "freaks" Jesus embraced and loved.

The Bible was more clear on divorce than homosexuality. Jesus addressed the issue of divorce more than once. He never explicitly spoke of homosexuality. Many Christians turn a blind eye to the sin of divorce, but are quick to judge homosexuality. Sin is sin and to compare one sin to another is wrong.

[cheewiee]

You make an assumption that the fall of the Greek empire was related to homosexuality at all. Do we look at the fall of the German Empire of the 20th century and blame homosexuality? No. Hitler was not homosexual. Earlier, there was no suggestion that Napoleon was homosexual. In fact, can we say any leader through history was homosexual and his homosexuality caused the downfall of a society? I can't think of one. And I don't think that was the case in Soddom and Gomorrah as there are multiple interpretations as to why their destruction occurred.

Are you comparing Nazi Germany to Ancient Greece? Are you Comparing Nepeolonic France to the Roman Empire?

The Grecian Empire completely shifted the global balance of Power from Asia to Europe, and the Roman Empire subjugated the entire known world at that time. Hitler may have developed a war machine and agressivly expanded into his neighboring countries, but his conquests are a mere footnote in the annals of history. He will forever be known for his barbaric systematic murder of jews.

The Francian Empire as well, nothing more than an insignificant footnote in history compared to the Roman Empire. The fact that you would compare the two shows that you have no idea the magnitide of global power These two ancient empires had.

And no one is saying that rampit homosexuality was the cause for the fall, simply that it is painfully obvious that at their zeneith of influence right before the twilight of their end Homosexuality was rampit in both empires.

[Debbie]

Using biblical principal, scripture has helped this discussion stay on tract. Instead of contridicating another, use scripture to support your position.

[cheewiee]

I disagree. Many homosexuals don't flaunt their lifestyles. In fact, I suspect there are many homosexuals living near you, working near you, praying near you, etc. ... and you have no idea. Again, we need to define what "flaunting a lifestyle" means.

As heterosexuals do, does displaying a family picture on your desk at work count as flaunting a lifestyle?

Try this, go to google and click on images. Then type in "Gay pride"

Then google say "divorce pride", or "Adultry pride"

[cheewiee]

I think being called a Jesus freak is a compliment. It was the "freaks" Jesus embraced and loved.

The Bible was more clear on divorce than homosexuality. Jesus addressed the issue of divorce more than once. He never explicitly spoke of homosexuality. Many Christians turn a blind eye to the sin of divorce, but are quick to judge homosexuality. Sin is sin and to compare one sin to another is wrong.

Actually Jesus most likely addressed the issue of divorce once, it is just recorded two times in scripture.

And I pointed out, that many christians do not turn a blind eye to divorce. Perhaps you didn't notice that I pointed out that the largest evangelical denomination would remove the ordination of a well known pastor, who's wife abandoned him if he remarried.

Lets look at what the Bible says about homosexuality.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

[SonflowerGurl]

I think being called a Jesus freak is a compliment. It was the "freaks" Jesus embraced and loved.

The Bible was more clear on divorce than homosexuality. Jesus addressed the issue of divorce more than once. He never explicitly spoke of homosexuality. Many Christians turn a blind eye to the sin of divorce, but are quick to judge homosexuality. Sin is sin and to compare one sin to another is wrong.

So why has one sin (active homosexuality) being compared another sin (divorce) in an attempt to ok the other? I believe the media headline that started this thread was that a "Gay War Vet was Denied A Memorial At Church In Texas"....this wasn't anything this Church asked to be involved in...it was an attempt by those who would "glorify" a sinful lifestyle to stir things up. This Church acted in the most loving way possible while honoring God by the standards this Church upholds...those define by God's Word.

[cheewiee]

So why has one sin (active homosexuality) being compared another sin (divorce) in an attempt to ok the other? I believe the media headline that started this thread was that a "Gay War Vet was Denied A Memorial At Church In Texas"....this wasn't anything this Church asked to be involved in...it was an attempt by those who would "glorify" a sinful lifestyle to stir things up. This Church acted in the most loving way possible while honoring God by the standards this Church upholds...those define by God's Word.

Exactly, And since this thread is rapidly changing course into a discussion on the sinfulness of Homosexuality, something scripture clearly states, I am done participating in the discussion.

[Jesuslove]

Try this, go to google and click on images. Then type in "Gay pride"

Then google say "divorce pride", or "Adultry pride"

Try this.. go into your office tomorrow and look for pictures of gay couples on desks.. then go the desks of divorced/remarried couples and see if picture of their spouse are proudlly displayed. I did this very thing earlier today.

I went to the desks of five divorced people and five known homosexuals. In every case, the divorced person proudly displayed their new partner on their desk. In every case, there was no overt evidence (no pictures) of gay couples together openly / proudly displayed on desks.

Why would that be?

[cheewiee]

Try this.. go into your office tomorrow and look for pictures of gay couples on desks.. then go the desks of divorced/remarried couples and see if picture of their spouse are proudlly displayed. I did this very thing earlier today.

I went to the desks of five divorced people and five known homosexuals. In every case, the divorced person proudly displayed their new partner on their desk. In every case, there was no overt evidence (no pictures) of gay couples together openly / proudly displayed on desks.

Why would that be?

Have you done what I asked yet?

[SonflowerGurl]

Actually I have seen pictures of a "significant other" on a co-workers desk. No biggie. If the picture was inapproiate in content I might be more uncomfortable.

Do you know the circumstances of those who remarried after a divorce? Do you know the facts?
Is it just me or do you have an issue with divorced people?

[Jesuslove]

Actually I have seen pictures of a "significant other" on a co-workers desk. No biggie. And do you know the circumstances of those who remarried? Do you know the facts?

Is it just me or do you have an issue with divorced people?

No, I think divorce / remarriage is as much a sin as homosexuality. In some cases I do know the circumstances of the divorce. I know some who have divorced more than once, and the people still consider themselves conservative Christians.

I don't judge divorced people any more than I judge homosexuals. I am just repulsed by hypocrisy.

[cheewiee]

Actually I have seen pictures of a "significant other" on a co-workers desk. No biggie. If the picture was inapproiate in content I might be more uncomfortable.

Do you know the circumstances of those who remarried after a divorce? Do you know the facts?
Is it just me or do you have an issue with divorced people?

I think he is trying to say the church is being hypocritical in it's dealings with homosexuals vs. the divorced. As I have pointed out, I don't necessarly think this is an issue, considering that Charles Stanley would be defrocked (can you use that term about a protestant?) if he were to remarry, and He is a member of the largest Evangelical Denomination in the US.

[cheewiee]

No, I think divorce / remarriage is as much a sin as homosexuality. In some cases I do know the circumstances of the divorce. I know some who have divorced more than once, and the people still consider themselves conservative Christians.

I don't judge divorced people any more than I judge homosexuals. I am just repulsed by hypocrisy.

Could you please acknowledge that you are aware of Charles Stanley, a prominent Southern Baptist Minister who's wife left him, and is not allowed to remarry under the rules of the SBC?

[Jesuslove]

Could you please acknowledge that you are aware of Charles Stanley, a prominent Southern Baptist Minister who's wife left him, and is not allowed to remarry under the rules of the SBC?

I can't speak of Charles Stanley as I don't know anything about him. If his wife's leaving was justified, then Mr. Stanley should not be allowed to marry. I don't know enough about his case to fairly discuss it.

[cheewiee]

I can't speak of Charles Stanley as I don't know anything about him. If his wife's leaving was justified, then Mr. Stanley should not be allowed to marry. I don't know enough about his case to fairly discuss it.

Do you understand... It isn't whether or not his wife was justified in leaving him.... Even if she wasn't, according to the Denominations rules he cannot remarry.. Should he, he would lose his ordination with the SBC.

So this Hypocrisy that you seem so zealous to claim exists, doesn't... well at-least not in America's largest Evangelical Denomination....

[Jesuslove]

Do you understand... It isn't whether or not his wife was justified in leaving him.... Even if she wasn't, according to the Denominations rules he cannot remarry.. Should he, he would lose his ordination with the SBC.

So this Hypocrisy that you seem so zealous to claim exists, doesn't... well at-least not in America's largest Evangelical Denomination....

On the surface, losing his ordination seems unfair. In general, life isn't fair. Is it fair when a 5 year old dies of cancer? Is it fair that some are killed in war, long before their time? Is it fair when a smoker lives to 90 and someone who lives a healthy lifestyle dies in a car crash? Life isn't fair.

Accepting ourselves, and accepting others around us, is what Christ calls us to do.

[cheewiee]

On the surface, losing his ordination seems unfair. In general, life isn't fair. Is it fair when a 5 year old dies of cancer? Is it fair that some are killed in war, long before their time? Is it fair when a smoker lives to 90 and someone who lives a healthy lifestyle dies in a car crash? Life isn't fair.

Again you miss the point. You rail against the hypocracy in the church when it comes to Divorce and homosexuality and I show you a prominent instance where there lies no double standard and you simply gloss over it with some talk about fair...

I'm not asking you whether it's fair, I am asking you to acknowledge that in this instance the church (or a large denomination) has taken a consistent stand both against homosexuality and divorce, but you seem unwilling to do so...

Accepting ourselves, and accepting others around us, is what Christ calls us to do.
Not really... Christ called us to preach the Gospel, that sinners can be free from the bounds of sin... That's what Jesus called us to do.

[Debbie]

Just a gentle friendly final reminder, we are loosing site of the general topic in this thread. And we were doing so good. Again, to reiterate the position of these boards:
On the subject of Sexuality

The board administration has come to a conclusion regarding past and recent conversations on the subject of homosexuality. The following explains the boards position on the topic.

Topics concerning various sexual acts or preferences are not appropriate for a "family-friendly" website. In order to maintain an atmosphere on the boards that is family-friendly and appropriate for all readers, we will not allow specific discussions of sexuality, including homosexuality.

Scripture is quite clear that (1) sexual immorality (including homosexuality) is sin, and (2) Christianity is about us being transformed into Christ's image, with a result being that we are free from bondage to sin. There is nothing to be gained from arguments about these points; the Bible explicitly and definitively states the truth regarding the matter, and it would be denying the power of the gospel to say that people cannot be changed by God, or cannot be free from sin.
We are not sticking our heads in the sand, ignoring a topic that is prevalent in our society (and even in the church) today. We are simply saying that it is not appropriate to discuss things of a sexual nature on a website that children visit. We realize that with our culture's push for acceptance of certain forms of immorality, some topics may arise that are related to homosexuality. The root issue behind such topics, however, is not actually homosexuality, but how to handle situations that involve sexual immorality (or perhaps sin in general); homosexuality is merely a currently relevant application of the principles in question. These underlying issues may be discussed in general terms, so long as it is without reference to specific sexual acts or preferences, including homosexuality.

[clemsontigers23]

Try this, go to google and click on images. Then type in "Gay pride"

Then google say "divorce pride", or "Adultry pride"

Excellent point. The San Diego Padres recently held a Gay Pride Day at one of their ballgames. Problem is, they were also giving away free things to kids on the same day! The Padres and ESPN showed women kissing women, men kissing men, and whenever they kissed they did it in an arrogant manner. You could actually see kids looking confused. Homosexuality is glorified everywhere you go. Last time I checked, there are no "Porn Pride" parades and no "Adultery Days" at baseball games. A sizable minority, which will eventually turn into the majority, thinks there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. If you even speak out against it, you are called a homophobe and a bigot.

A particular case comes to mind. In Colorado, in a school yearbook there was a picture of two girls kissing, and they were lesbians. You don't usually see porn in school yearbooks, but homosexuality is widely regarded as okay.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed largely because of their huge homosexual population, as is evidenced in Genesis 19:

1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

12 The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."

There's a reason God made things the way they are. Homosexuality is not acceptable, and because it is a lifestyle lived openly and proudly by most, I would seriously doubt that many homosexuals are truly making an effort to repent and turn from the sin. Many people think there's nothing wrong with homosexuality because the Church is too scared to speak out against it. I think it's time someone took a stand against the lifestyle, yet at the same time reach out to the person living it with love and compassion.

[blacksheep]

There's a reason God made things the way they are. Homosexuality is not acceptable, and because it is a lifestyle lived openly and proudly by most, I would seriously doubt that many homosexuals are truly making an effort to repent and turn from the sin. Many people think there's nothing wrong with homosexuality because the Church is too scared to speak out against it. I think it's time someone took a stand against the lifestyle, yet at the same time reach out to the person living it with love and compassion.

Yes, people are continually watering down the Bible in order that their way of life may become more acceptable. But most church leadership that I have seen in recent years have been very vocal about these things. It's the overall body that has been impotent when it comes to defending the standards of our faith. "Standards" has become some sort of a cuss word to a lot of people. I spoke with a confessing Christian just this morning who stated that he didn't believe you could even use the Bible as a moral compass anymore because we have "grown out of it." Basically, he wants it to be ok for him to continue sleeping with his fiancée. We even see this here on this very thread. Activities and actions are not very often considered right or wrong now, but ok for that person or group.

[Debbie]

Although I wish we could have this discussion to open ears, we can't. My apologies to all who bring great discussion and scripture to the table. It is wonderful to see solid believers who have no question in their faith and regardless of the multitude of love for the people, waiver not from the truth.

With that said, will close this thread for now. So you know, this is as close as we have come to having a great conversation on the subject. There is hope yet.